St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-01-10
St. Paul have been guilty of the same of

NV. L "al iotC DCCit guilty. VI IIlc SdIllS Ol-
| lenses.
While it must be conceded that the fail
ure by other licensed plumbers to comply
with the provisions of the ordinance can
not and does not make the offense of the
respondent any the less grave and deserving
OF punishment, yet tmay be seriously ques-
toned whether the fact that others have
been equally guilty with him, without COM
| plant by any one should not be considered
in mitigation of the punishment to be I'M
| posed by the Board upon the respondent.
The Board are clearly and unanimously of
the opinion that that fact should be taken
into consideration, and that the respondent
should not be made the ''scapegoat'' of
others who may be permitted to go unpun-
ished because no formal complaints have
been made against them, and. therefore,
while concedlng that the violations of this
ordinance by the respondent might, and
| probably do Justify the imposition by the
| Board OF the most severe penalty or punish
ment in its power to impose, viz: revO-
cation OF the respondents license Cf the
Board have that power, which is strenu-
Ously denied, with some force of
argument, by the learned and able
counsel for the respondentj, yet, as it is
not the sole object and purpose of the law
to intlict punishment for punishment's sake
alone. it having the broader and more
hunanzing purpose of removing crime and
( the lesser Offenses by the reformation of
those who practice them, and to secure
respect and obedience to its mandates, it
! is the opinion of this Board that, inasmuch
as this is the first complaint (although not
the respondents first Offense) that has been
| made to them against the respondent or
anybody else for a violation of this ordn-
ance, substantial justice. in this case, will
be accomplished, and the public interest
best subserved by tempering Justice some
| what with mercy.
1t is. therefore. the Judgment of this
Board that the respondent, James j. Dun
nigan, be publicly reprimanded for his re-
| peated violations OF the plumbing ordinance
and that he be also admoniShed that a
| repetition of his offenSe Will be Immediately
followed by the certain and unconditional
revocation of his license.
1t is but simple justice to the complain
ants, MI. Gustave Henemann and Mr.
Robert Seeger, to here acknowledge and
place upon record the fact that in the opn-
ion of this Board they (the compainants)
have, in making these complaints and thus
formally bringing to its attention the habit
ual violation of the ordinance by the
| licensed plumbers of the city, who are be-
lieved to be unfriendly to its enforcement,
performed an important public service.
| which cannot fail to be of some practical
benefit to the citizens of st. Paul.
1t is proper also to here state for the in
formation of the public that the duty of the
Board of Public Works, in granting licenses
to plumbers, is purely ministerial
| The regulations observed in such
cases require the Board to grant
license to a master plumber,
upon his making an application
in writing, therefor, recommended by two
master builders, of good standing, and his
application thus recommended, approved by
the Building Inspector, the City Engineer.
and the Engineer or Secretary of the Board
Of Water Commissioners.
The Board having granted license to a
master plumber upon such an application,
so recommended and approved, have nc
means of knowing whether OF not the per-
son so licensed is complying with the pro-
visions of the ordinance and the conditions
of his bond, unless advised thereof by the
action of the Building inspector or the
Health Officer, i'll suspending such license.
! This investigation, and the findings OF
facts, and the imposition of punishment in
this case. will not have fully accomplished
their object, unless they snail result in
specially dill Getting the attention OF the pub
lie to the importance OF an absolute com
| pliance on the part not only of the licensed
plumbers of the city, but also on the par
of our citizens, with the plain and salutarl
provisions of-the plumbing ordinance.
This ordinance was passed to secure the
better protection of the life and health OF
our citizens.
1t is purely a sanitary regulation, wisely
enacted, and is wholly in the interest of in.
surfing the best possible sanitation for ST.
Paul.
1t may not be perfect in all its provisions
if it is not as perfect as it should be, let i
be amended by the City Council; but in NJ
event. SO long as it remains a law, should il
be ignored. or its provisions be permitted tc
be violated.
Perhaps the extent to which this ordi-
nance has been violated by the licensed
plumbers of the city, with the tact consent
if not with the connivance of portion OF
our citizens who have erected buildings in
st. Paul during the present year, cannot be
made to more clearly appear than by here
stating two or three facts which this inves-
tigation has brought to light.
The Building Inspector states that there
have been more than 3, 800 buildings erected
in this city during the first eleven month.
of the year 1856.
The records of this Board show that there
have been twenty-four licenses granted tt
master plumbers since the 1st of January
1856.
The records of the Building Inspector
show that only 497 permits for plumbing
have been taken out by the licensed pumb
erS since Jan. l, 1886.
1t is incredible that of the $500 building!
erected in this city during the present yea
only 497 of them have had any plumbing
done i'll them.
1t is more probable that at least /, 500 Of
those buildings have had some plumbing
done i'll them, for which, i'll each case,
permit should have been taken from thu
office of the Building Inspector If such i.
the fact. then. two-t thirds at least of those
1,500 buildings have had the plumbing il
them done in open. not to say willful, VIC
lation of the ordinance.
For such a general and gross violation
and disregard of a law made for public pro
lection, can it be said that the plumbers are
wholly to blame? This Board thinks not
If every person VINO has employed the
services of plumber in this city the pres
ent year had insisted that the person so EN-
pioyed by him should have taken out per
NIT before commencing his work, and haC
required him to exhibit the same to him
this investigation would not have been nee
essary. Carelessness Indifference or neg
lect on the part of many persons who have
erected buildings in st. Paul the presen
year has in some measure contributed to TIT
great number of violations of the ordinance
1t is unquestionably true that a majority
of the master plumbers of the city are, a
has been already stated. unfriendly to thu
ordinance. and avowedly opposed to its en-
forcement.
OF this fact their hahitual ignoring of the